Premium
CA 242 is a new tumor marker for pancreatic cancer
Author(s) -
Röthlin Markus A.,
Joller Helen,
Largiadèr Felix
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.052
H-Index - 304
eISSN - 1097-0142
pISSN - 0008-543X
DOI - 10.1002/1097-0142(19930201)71:3<701::aid-cncr2820710308>3.0.co;2-c
Subject(s) - medicine , ca19 9 , pancreatic cancer , carcinoembryonic antigen , pancreatitis , gastroenterology , pancreas , tumor marker , cancer , differential diagnosis , pancreatic disease , population , adenocarcinoma , pathology , environmental health
Background . The tremendous progress in imaging techniques over the past few years has not resulted in an earlier diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (PC). The search for a noninvasive diagnostic tool, capable of early diagnosis, led to the development of a series of tumor markers. This article discusses the evaluation of the latest one—CA 242—and its comparison with established markers such as CA 19.9, CA 50, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). Methods . The markers were tested in preoperative serum samples collected from 300 patients and 30 healthy controls between April 1986 and May 1991. There were 68 patients with ductal carcinoma of the pancreas, 24 with other pancreatic tumors, 57 with acute pancreatitis, 29 with chronic pancreatitis (CP), 90 with benign disease of the upper gastrointestinal tract, and 32 with malignant disease. The test for CA 242 consisted of a DELFIA research kit (WALLAC OY, Turku, Finland) with a cutoff level of 20 U/ml. The other markers were tested with commercially available kits. Results . Sensitivities for PC in this population, with other malignant neoplasms accounting for 16% of the group, were 66.2%, 70.6%, and 70.6% for CA 242, CA 19.9, and CA 50, respectively (90% specificity level). The best results were achieved with the combination of CA 242 and CA 50, reaching a sensitivity of 75.0%. The differential diagnosis between PC and CP could be made with a sensitivity of 64.7%, 79.4%, and 77.9%, respectively, for the three markers. Conclusions . The authors conclude that, on its own, CA 242 does not improve the sensitivities reached with CA 19.9 and CA 50, but the combination does achieve both a higher sensitivity and specificity.